(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Land use plan"

FL 3 
61 

1977 
c. 2 





land use plan 




^^'^^^''^fci.^-^' 




^^^AV;fe 



^''^"^^4^ 






North Central Florida Regional Planning Council 



COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP 
1977 

OFFICERS 

Jonathan F. Wershow, Chairman 

Paul Riherd, Vice Chairman 

Jerry Scarborough, Secretary-Treasurer 



ALACHUA COUNTY 

"Thomas Coward Wilson Robinson 

"Jack Durrance Edwin B. Turlington 

Perry McGriff, Jr. "Jonathan F. Wershow 

BRADFORD COUNTY 

"E. W. Hodges -Robert L. Scott 

COLUMBIA COUNTY 

"James Montgormery Wayne Nettles 

HAMILTON COUNTY 

'•^L. A. Edenfield 

LAFAYETTE COUNTY 

"Paul Trawick 

MADISON COUNTY 

Albert Kelley Howard McDaniel 

SUWANNEE COUNTY 

"Jerry Scarborough 

TAYLOR COUNTY 

"Shirley Curry '^Samuel Osteen 

UNION COUNTY 

"Paul Riherd 



CITY OF ALACHUA 

"Glenn DuBois 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE 

Clayton C. Curtis Gary Junior 

B. Harold Farmer Gary McClain 

"Aaron Green "Bobbie Lisle 

William Howard '^'Joseph Little 

CITY OF HIGH SPRINGS 

Cleve Blanton 

CITY OF LAKE CITY 

Elzina Jenkins -Paul Roy 

CITY OF LIVE OAK 
Rev. Ellis Fann -S. T. McDowell 

CITY OF MADISON 
"Frank Merritt 

CITY OF MICANOPY 
Wi 1 1 iam Proctor 

CITY OF PERRY 

Andy Bowdoin 

CITY OF STARKE 
"Harold Epps 



•Board of Directors 



RESOLUTI ON 



WHEREAS, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council is preparing 
a Regional Comprehensive Plan, the basic goal of which is to "improve our 
quality of living;" and 

WHEREAS, achievement of this goal is dependent upon sound comprehensive 
planning addressing the problems and opportunities for future growth and 
prosperity of the region; and 

WHEREAS, it is the goal of the Council to blend man's activities with the 
region's natural resources and processes; and 

WHEREAS, It is an objective of the Council to encourage the orderly and 
harmonious development and redevelopment of existing communities and, 
further, to support the preservation of areas of historical and arche- 
ologlcal significance; and 

WHEREAS, the adoption of the Land Use Plan study will assist in the 
achievement of the goals, policies and objectives of the Council, as well 
as provide assistance and guidance to local governments in the preparation 
of local plans; 



NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Council adopts the Land Use Plan to 
manage land development in an equitable manner based upon a plan and 
implemented according to consistent development standards. 




Jona 
Febr 



thi 
u 
I 



an F. Wershow, Chairman 
ry 23, 1978 





Jerry Scarboraugh , Secretary-Treasurer 
February 23, I978 



[ 

r 



r 
r 



r 
r 

r 



LAND USE PLAN 



The preparation of this report was financed in 
part through a comprehensive planning grant from 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 



July, 1977 



North Central Florida Regional Planning Council 
2002 Northwest 13th Street, Suite 202 
Gainesville, Florida 32601 
(904) 376-33^4 



ff 



11 

P 
D 



BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA P- R'-^port No. 

SHEET I NCFRPC 77-003 



3.M^ec ipient's Accession W 



4. Title and Subtitle 



'5. Report Date 

July, 1977 



Land Use Plan 



7. Authori's ) 



See #9 Below 



8- Performing Organization Rept. 

^''- NCFRPC 77-003 



9. Perf(Kming Organization Name and Address 

North Central Florida Regional Planning Council 
2002 N.W. 13th Street, Suite 202 
Gainesville, FL 32601 



10. Project, Task/ U'ork Unit No. 



11. Contract 'Grant No. 



CPA-FL-0^-00-1006 



1 2. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 
661 Riverside Avenue 
Jacksonville, FL 32204 



13. Type of Report & Period 
Covered 

Fi na 1 



14. 



15. Supplementary Notes 



16. Abstracts 

This study develops a planning tool to assist local government decision-makers and 
citizens resolve land use and land management Issues. Map overlay techniques are 
utilized to identify various physiographic characteristics of the land, and to analyze 
the Inter-relationships. Land Is divided Into three use categories: preservation, 
conservation, and development. Land use Issues such as new communities and water sup- 
ply are addressed. Data and analytical techniques are shared with the Natural Re- 
sources Study. Goals, objectives and policies are recommended. 



17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors 

Land Use; Physiographic Characteristics; Preservation; Conservation; Development; 
Population; urban Area. 



17b. Identif iers /Open-Ended Terms 



17c. COSATI Field/Group 



18. Availability Statement A^gt] able fcom the North Central 
Florida Regional Planning Council 

2002 N.W. 13th Street, Suite 202 
Gainesville, FL 32601 



19. Security Class (This 
Report ) 

UNCLASSIFIED 



20. Security Class fThis 
Page 

UNCLASSIFIED 



21. No. of Pages 

94 



22. Price 



FORM MTIS-35 :REV, 3-72) 



THIS FORM .MAY BE REPRODUCED 
I I i 



JSCOMM-DC '4952-P72 



b 

li 



L 



i 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

Table of Contents v 

List of Tables • . , . . vii 

List of Maps vii 

Introduction: Scope and Objective of Study ] 

Summary and Conclusions 3 

Existing Land Use 7 

Definitions 8 

Physiographic Characteristics . 23 

Existing Urban Areas 23 

Commercial Forests 23 

Soils 2k 

Flood Hazard Areas 29 

River Floodplains 29 

Wetlands 30 

Hurricane Flood Zones 30 

Wetlands 30 

Selected Coastal Marshes 30 

Selected Freshwater Swamps and Marshes 39 

Historical, Archeolog i ca 1 , and Natural Areas 39 

Population Factors Contributing to Growth Patterns k3 

Future Land Use ^9 

Physical Factors kS 

Existing Urban Areas k3 

Soil Limitations 50 

Floodplains . 51 

Wetlands 52 

Social and Economic Factors 52 

Land Use Categories 53 

Preservation 5^ 

Conservation 5^ 

Development 61 

Land Use Plan 61 

Land Use Issues 62 

Goals, Objectives, and Policies 67 

Land Use 69 

Natural Resources 70 

Appendices 77 

BIbl iography 83 



LIST OF TABLES 



Table Page 

1 A-L Land Use Profiles 11-22 

1 -A Regional Summary 11 

1-B Alachua County 12 

1 -C Bradford County 13 

1-D Columbia County 14 

1-E Dixie County 15 

1-F Gilchrist County 16 

1-G Hamilton County 17 

1-H Lafayette County 18 

1-J Madison County 19 

1 -J Suwannee County 20 

1-K Taylor County 21 

1-L Union County 22 

2. Population Profiles, Region III, 1975-2000 kk 

3. Urbanized Area Estimates, 1975-2000 k6 



LIST OF MAPS 

North Central Florida Planning Region - District III ix 

Existing Land Use 9 

Existing Urban Areas 25 

Significant Commercial Forests 27 

Soil Suitability for Agriculture 31 

Soil Least Suitable for Development 33 

Areas Subject to 100-Year Flood 35 

Wetlands 37 

Significant Natural Areas k] 

Preservation 55 

Conservation 57 

Development 59 

Land Use Plan 63 



V I I 



r 



ff 




2 i 



r 
r 
I 
r 
r 
I 
r 

r 

r 

L 

[ 
I 
I 

b 

r 
i 



I NTRODUCTI ON 

The objective of the Land Use Plan Is to develop a mechanism to assist the 
decision-making process with regard to land use and land management within 
the Region. A continuing effort is being made to develop and refine a 
planning tool consisting of a series of map overlays depicting a variety of 
physical characteristics of land within the Region, ranging from existing 
urban areas to natural systems to future urban area needs. Utilizing some 
of the same data as the Natural Resources Study ^ these overlays will be used 
to construct a map showing land within the Region divided Into three use 
categories: preservation, conservation, and development. Finally, a compos' 
ite map will be developed showing these categories in relation to existing 
urban areas and transportation networks, as well as those areas expected to 
be converted to urban use. 

The study addresses but does not resolve land use Issues such as new commun- 
ities, density of development, and water use, although it does offer recom- 
mendations in these areas and others, such as conflicting land uses. The 
reader should be cautioned that this plan Is not Intended as a panacea for 
local land use problems or conflicts. Indeed, regional planning Is supple- 
mentary to local planning and not a substitute for it. The purpose of this 
study Is therefore to provide a broad framework within which local govern- 
ments can plan for their own growth and orderly expansion. The plan there- 
fore serves to alert local governments to the natural systems and resources 
of their Region, to provide an Indication of development trends and the 
consequences thereof, and to recommend a direction for policy activity. 

Policy activity must strive to accommodate anticipated population growth 
while maintaining the integrity of natural systems. This study Is so 
or lented. 



SUMMARY AND CONCLUS I ONS 

The information presented in the study indicates the complexity of the 
land use issue, and Illustrates the interrelationships between the 
environment and human activity. Much of the data are closely integrated 
with data presented in the accompanying Natural Resources Study . The two 
studies complement each other and should be considered together. 

Following a description of lands within the Region in terms of physio- 
graphic characteristics, population projections from the 1976 Population 
and Economic Study are utilized to project urban area needs in terms of 
square mi les of Tand consumed. The implicit assumption is that popu- 
lation and economic growth will concentrate in and around current urban 
areas, and that the physical expansion of these areas to accommodate the 
growth will occur in an orderly and well managed fashion. Finally, lands 
and waters within the Region are grouped into three land use categories: 
preservation, conservation and development. The Land Use Plan map shows 
these three land use categories in relation to each other, to the existing 
urban areas, to the existing transportation systems, and to the anticipated 
future urban area needs. 

The study concludes that prime agricultural lands, rivers, wetlands and 
historic, archeolog leal and natural areas should be preserved, and the 
values or functions associated with these areas should be protected. The 
study also shows that there exists within the Region sufficient land area 
to accommodate the projected population and economic growth without sacri- 
ficing prime agricultural lands, and urges local governments to discourage 
the development of new communities. 

The study illustrates the dependency of human development upon natural 
resources, and attempts to present a method whereby decision-makers and 
citizens alike can rationally approach land use issues. Water supply Is 
one such resource that Influences human activity, and the study is careful 
to point out that while the Region sets upon a large portion of the 
Florldan Aquifer, the quantity of fresh water contained therein is as yet 
unknown, and it would be unwise to assume that the supply is unlimited. 
Freshwater supply problems In southern Florida serve as as examples to 
forewarn area residents against haphazard development. 

The importance of considering natural resources and natural systems when 
deciding land use questions Is stressed throughout the study. Indeed, much 
of the data and techniques of analysis and presentation are shared with the 
Natural Resources Study. The study is oriented toward designing land use 



policies at the local level which are cognizant of the importance of main- 
taining the integrity of natural systems. The goals, objectives and 
policies presented in this study represent broad policy statements at the 
regional level, within which local policies may be designed to meet 
specific needs. 



GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES 

GOAL : To manage growth and guide development within the Region 

utilizing land management techniques to maximize efficiency 
In (land) use while minimizing current and potential long-term 
detrimental impacts to the land, natural resources or the 
qua 1 I ty of 1 I f e. 

OBJECTIVE : To encourage the orderly and harmonious development and redevel- 
opment of existing communities. 

POL I C I ES : To maintain and enhance the quality of the environment by the 
proper use and development of land, within the tolerances of 
natural systems. 

To utilize energy and natural resources prudently and effi- 
ciently in the use and development of land. 

To employ land use guidelines to preserve land and natural 
resources for use by future generations. 

To assess a wide variety of alternatives to lateral expansion 
of communities to accommodate the growth of human settlements. 

To encourage the rev I ta 1 I zat Ion and redevelopment of existing 
communities, recycling natural resources where possible, as 
opposed to initiating new communities. 

OBJECTI VE : To protect and promote the health, safety, social and economic 
well-being of residents within the Region by properly managing 
land development. 

POLI CI ES : To support the preservation of areas of historical and archaeo- 
logical significance. 

To encourage the preservation of areas of unique agricultural 
s Ign I f I cance. 

To encourage the judicious use of those lands which are suitable 
for both agriculture and development by providing local govern- 
ments with the most up-to-date Information available for use in 
the decision-making process. 



OBJECTIVE : To protect and maintain the desirable social and economic 
characteristics and functions of urban areas in a manner 
consistent with the capabilities of the natural and man-made 
systems of the area. 

POLI CI ES : To encourage the provision of adequate community services and 
faci 1 i t ies. 

To assist local governments in the development and implemen- 
tation of comprehensive plans. 

OBJECT! VE : To manage land development in an equitable manner based upon a 
plan implemented according to consistent development standards 

POLI C I ES : To distribute growth and development within the Region in a 
manner consistent with support capabilities of available 
resources. 

To assist local governments in the development and implemen- 
tation of comprehensive plans, including but not limited to 
land use guidelines, zoning and subdivision regulations. 



EX I STI NG LAND USE 

The following pages present land use profiles for each of the eleven 
counties in the Region, as well as a regional summary. The profiles are 
limited to five specific land use categor i es--urban and built up, agri- 
culture, forested, water, and wet lands--pl us a general category to include 
uses which do not fall within the previous five descriptive categories, 
in each situation that the general category is used the specific land use 
is Identified. Each profile also provides a county summary, subdividing 
the total county area Into total land and total water areas. A similar 
summary Is provided for the Region as a whole. 

Data for the construction of these tables came from a variety of sources, 
as noted at the bottom of each table. County and/or city comprehensive 
plans were utilized where they existed, as were several river basin plans, 
coastal zone documents, and census documents. In a few cases some Interpo- 
lation of data was necessary. As a check to this methodology, and as a 
safeguard against unsound interpolation results, the figures for total area 
were compared with the latest edition of the Florida Statistical Abstract . 
The variance, if any, and the direction of variance was noted at the foot 
of each table. The variance experienced after summing data from the eleven 
counties totaled 67 square miles, or ^2,865.75 acres, representing less 
than one percent of the estimate In the aforementioned abstract. 

The nature of the tables is such that no accompanying narrative Is neces- 
sary, although one Is provided for the regional summary. 

The predominant land use in the Region Is forest production, accounting 
for nearly 60 percent of all land within the area. This percentage is 
even greater if the area of the Osceola National Forest is included, and 
greater still if forested wetlands are added. 

Second in rank of land area consumed is agriculture, signifying primarily 
crop lands and pasture land. A distant third is wetlands, including coastal 
marshes, followed by urban areas. Although urban areas cover 250 square 
miles of land, those areas represent less than four percent of the total 
land area within the Region. This is a striking contrast to the heavily 
urbanized areas in southern Florida, and Indicates that there Is sufficient 
room to accommodate the anticipated population growth within the parameters 
of manageable expansion Identified later In this study. 



DEF I N I Tl ONS 

Urban and Bu 1 1 fup - Cities and metropolitan areas, not limited to the 
confines of city limits, but including urbanized areas contiguous to 
cities, to the extent identifiable; includes correctional institutions 
such as Raiford. Also Included are residential areas, schools, service 
facilities such as water, sewer, solid waste disposal, and utilities, as 
well as transportation networks, shopping and governmental buildings. 
This constitutes the most intense use of land, and it is assumed that such 
use precludes the return of the land to its natural state. 

Min i ng - An industrial use of the land distinct from urban and built-up 
areas. Shown separately as a means of identifying mining activities with- 
in the Region, and to give some indication of the scale of these opera- 
tions; intense use of land, although the land can theoretically be returned 
to its natural, pre-mining state, in the land use profiles mining falls 
into the 'Other' category, since it is not indigenous to all 11 counties. 

Agr icul ture - Specifically, crop lands and pasture lands; temporarily 
alters the landscape and is not considered as intense a land use as mining 
or urban act i vi ty. 

Forests - Refers in this instance to commercial forests, since the smaller, 
individually owned tracts of land which have trees on them are not consid- 
ered a major factor in determining land uses in the Region. Clear cutting 
is acknowledged as being the most common forest management practice, 
although not all clear cutting is for that purpose. Forest development 
and management is considered a less intense use of land than agriculture. 

Water - Primarily lakes. 

Wet lands - in the land use profiles, this category signifies forested and 
non-forested wetlands, those areas where the water table Is at, near or 
above land surface for most of the year. Signified by swamps, and fresh 
and salt water marshes, wetlands serve as habitats for specific types of 
vegetation and wildlife, and serve other important natural functions such 
as aquifer recharge areas. Due to the scale of the reproduction, wet- 
lands are not shown on the Existing Land Use Map. However, these areas 
are described In much detail in the accompanying Natural Resources Study. 



[ 

n 

I! 



Other: 

Extract i ve 
Osceola Forest 
Rangeland 

Total Land Area 
Total Water Area 
Total Area 



TABLE 1-A 
LAND USE PROF! LE 
REG ION Mi SUMMARY 



CATEGORY 


ACRES'-^ 


('76 F'.S.A.) 
SQUARE MILES^'-- 


i 


Urban S Bu i 1 t Up 


160,167 


250.0 


3.7 


Agr icul ture 


1, 142,298 


1,785.4 


26.2 


Forested 


2,533,556 


3,960.0 


58.2 


Water 


62,/409 


97.6 


1.4 


Wetlands 


404,814^ 


632.5^ 


9.3 



10,657 
77,802 
16,796 

4,290,090 

62,409 

4,352,499 



16.7 
121 .6 

26.3 

6,705.1 (6,775.4) 

97.6 (94.6) 
6,802.7 (6,870.0)' 





.2 


1 


.8 




.4 


98 


.6 


1 


.4 


00 


.0 



See Footnote No. 3, Alachua County Land Use Profile, p. 12 

The total area estimate differs from the 1976 Florida Statistical Abstract 
estimate by 67 square miles, representing 0.97 percent of Florida 
Statistical Abstract figure; 67 square miles represents 42,865.75 acres. 

"■'■'See Appendix A. 

•'-•'Columns may not appear to add correctly due to rounding of figures. 



11 



TABLE 1-B 
LAND USE PROFILE 
ALACHUA COUNTY 



CATEGORY 


ACRES-"- 


SQUARE MILES- 


Urban & Bu i 1 t Up 


55,2/45^ 


86.3 


Agricul ture 


272,609'^ 


421 .9 


Forested 


258,000 


403.3 


Water 


31 ,600 


49.4 


Wet 1 ands 


(56,000)'' 




Total Land Area 


585.854 


915.5 


Total Water Area 


31 ,600 


49.4 


Total Area 


617,454 


964.9 



This figure was derived from Table 9, page 24, "Land Use Profile Unincor- 
porated (Gainesville Urban Area) 1963 and 1971"; Table 10, page 32, "1971 
Land Use Profile, Non-Urban Area and Small Municipalities", Alachua 
County Comprehensive Plan, 1975-1995 . Volume II, 1975; Table 3, page 13, 
Census of Local Governments , Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1977 

Table 9, page 24, Table 10, page 32, Alachua County Comprehensive Plan, 
1 975- 1995 , Volume 11; Includes area identified as Agriculture, as well as 
Vacant and Undeveloped Lands. 

^Table III-9, Page 3-34, "Florida Wetlands of the Northeast Gulf River 
Basins by Counties", Northeast Gulf River Basins, Florida, Alabama, 
Georgia, Cooperative Study , United States Department of Agriculture, et 
al , 1 977 ; Staff estimate of approximate acreage of total wetlands in 
Alachua County. The reader is cautioned that this figure includes 
acreage also identified as either Agriculture or Forested, and is there- 
fore expressed parenthetically. 

Total area figures coincide with data from the 1976 Flor i da Stat i st i cal 
Abstract . 

"See Appendix A. 



12 



TABLE 1-C 
LAND USE PROFILE 
BRADFORD COUNTY 



CATEGORY 


ACRES-"- 


SQUARE MILES^'-- 


Urban & Bui It Up^ 


21,795 


34.1 


Agr icul ture 


57,^16 


89.7 


Forested 


91,897 


143.6 


Water 


^.672 


7.3 


Wet lands 


— 


— 


Other (Rangeland) 


16,796 


26.3 


Total Land Area 


187,904 


293.7 


Total Water Area 


4,672 


7.3 


Total Area 


192,576 


301 .0 



Includes Recreation & Open Space - 93 Acres/. 15 Square Miles. 

Source: Table 1, pg . l80, "Existing Land Use for Bradford County, 
Florida", Technical Assistance to Bradford County In 
Developing a Land Use Plan: A Basic Research Document , 
1974. - 

Figures for Total Area coincide with figures in 1976 Florida Statistical 
Abstract , Table 8.02, pg . 217. 

"See Append Ix A. 



13 



TABLE 1-D 
LAND USE PROFILE 
COLUMBIA COUNTY 



CATEGORY 


ACRES>''- 


SQUARE MILES'-'^ 


Urban S Bui 1 1 Up 


20,124 


31.5 


Agricul ture 


131 ,61 1 


205.7 


Forested 


227,504 


355.5 


Water 


1,751 


2.7 


Wet land 


45,602 


71.3 


Other (Extractive- 






Oseceola National 


450 


.7 


Forest) 


77,802 


121 .6 


Total Land Area 


503,093 


786.2 


Total Water Area 


1,751 


2.7 


Total Area 


504,844 


788.9 



Source: Table 3-1, pp. 64-66, "Existing Land Use for Columbia 
County Unincorporated Area", Comprehensive Planning 
Program, Columbia County, Florida, 1976. 



Total Area figure coincides with 1976 Florida Statistical Abstract 
estimate table 8.02, pg . 217. 



= See Append ix A, 



14 



TABLE ]-E 
LAND USE PROF I LE 
DIXIE COUNTY 



CATEGORY 


ACRES>'^ 


SQUARE MILES" 


Urban & Bui It Up 


7,560 


11.8 


Agr icul ture 


13,230 


20.7 


Forested 


393,600 


615. 2 


Water 


10,620 


16.6 


Wetland 


28,740 


44.9 


Total Land Area 


443,130 


692.8 


Total Water Area 


10,620 


16.6 


Total Area 


453,750 


709.4 



Source: Unpublished data furnished by Barr, Dunlop & Associates, Inc. 

Total area coincides with 1976 Florida Statistical Abstract data. Table 
8.02, pg. 217. 

"■'•See Appendix A. 



15 



TABLE 1-F 
LAND USE PROF I LE 
G I LCHR I ST COUNTY 



CATEGORY 


ACRES^'^ 


SQUARE MILES" 


Urban & Bu i 1 t Up 


7,855 


12.3 


Agr icul ture 


78.243 


122.3 


Forested 


69,8/+5 


109.2 


Water 


1,910 


3.0 


Wetland 


64,780 


101 .3 


Other (extractive) 


80 


.1 


Total Land Area 


220,810 


345.2 


Total Water Area 


1,910 


3.0 


Total Area 


222.713 


348.2 



Source: Table 4-1, pg . 72-73, "Existing Land Use for Gilchrist 

County Unincorporated Area", Gilchrist County Comprehensive 
Planning Program, 1976. 



Total area figure coincides with 1976 Florida Statistical Abstract data, 
table 8.02, pg . 217- 

"'■'See Append ix A. 



16 



TABLE l-G 
LAND USE PROFILE 
HAMILTON COUNTY 



CATEGORY 


ACRES^^ 


SQUARE MILES^'^ 


Urban & Bui 1 1 Up 


10,859 


17.0 


Agricul ture 


69,583 


108.8 


Forested 


224,629 


351.1 


Water 


820 


1.3 


Wetland 


11,560 


18.1 


Other (extractive) 


10,127 


15.8 


Total Land Area 


326,758 


510.6 


Total Water Area 


820 


1.3 


Total Area 


327,578 


511.9 



Source: Table 3-1, pp. 60-61, "Existing Land Use for Hamilton County, 
Unincorporated Area". Hamilton County Compreliens i ve Planning 
Program , Vol ume I , 1 97"^"! 

The total area estimate provided in Table 8.02, pg. 217, 1976 Florida 
Statistical Abstract is 515 square miles. 

"See Appendix A. 



17 



TABLE l-H 
LAND USE PROFILE 
LAFAYETTE COUNTY 



CATEGORY 


ACRES'-'^ 


SQUARE MILES^'^ 


Urban 5 Built Up 


2,239 


3.5 


Agricul ture 


63,979 


100.0 


Forested 


252,077 


374.0^ 


Water 


1,919 


3.0 


Wetlands 


20,473 


32.0 


Other 


— 


— 


Total Land Area 


338,768 


529.5 


Total Water Area 


1,919 


3.0 


Total Area 


3^0,687 


532.5^ 



Includes 171 square miles of recreational area. 

Source: Table 22.5 AA-3, pg. 111-1^2, S Table 22.5 BA-3, pg. 111-165, 
Aucilla - Ochlockonee - St. Marks Basin Water Quality 
Management Plan ; Table 21.26 A-3, pg. 111-59 & Table 2 1.2 AA , 
pg. 111-42, Suwannee River Basin Water Quality Management 
Plan; Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Aug. 
1975. 

Total area figure of 532.5 square miles does not coincide with 1976 
Florida Statistical Abstract figure of 551 square miles as provided In 
Table b . 02 , pg. 217. 

"See Appendix A. 



18 



TABLE 1-1 
LAND USE PROFILE 
MADISON COUNTY 



CATEGORY 


ACRES'-^ 


SQUARE MILES^'^ 


Urban S Bu i 1 t Up 


it, 158,62 


6.5 


Agr icul ture 


179,^60.35 


280.5 


Forested 


97,567.57 


152,5 


Water 


3,838.72 


6.0 


Wetlands 


152,909.10 


239.0 


Other 


— 


— 


Total Land Area 


43^,095.64 


678.5 


Total Water Area 


3,838.72 


6.0 


Total Area 


437,934.36 


684.5^ 



Total area figure of 684.5 square miles does not coincide with 1976 
Florida Statistical Abstract figure of 708 square miles, Table 8.02, 
pg. 217. 

Source Table 22.4 AA-3, pg. 111-123, & Table 22.5 AA-3, pg. 111-142, 
Aucilla - Ochlockonee - St. Marks River Basin Water Quality 
Management Plan : Florida Department of Environmental Regulation; 
Table 21.1 AA-3, pg. 111-4, & Table 21.2 BA-3, pg . 111-59, 
Suwannee River Basin Water Quality Management Plan , Florida 
Department of Environmental Regulation, August, 1975. 

"See Appendix A. 



19 



TABLE l-J 
LAND USE PROFILE 
SUWANNEE COUNTY 



CATEGORY 


AC RES --'^ 


SQUARE MILES-"- 


Urban & Build Up 


16,455^ 


25.7 


Agr icul ture 


224,302 


350.6 


Forested 


197,211'' 


308.2 


Water 


1,599 


2.5 


Wetland 






Total Land Area 


437,968 


684.6 


Total Water Area 


1,599 


2.5 


Total Area 


439,567 


687.1 



Live Oak acreage interpolated from population density data provided by 
Table 3, pg. 17, "Population, population clnange, area density by county 
& municipality 1975", Census of Local Governments , Florida Department of 
Community Affairs. 

Table 23 (see "Source" below) shows 198,810 acres of "Forests and Natural 
Areas"; yet no water area at all. The Suwannee River Basin Water Quality 
Management Plan , shows 2.5 square miles of water within the county. This 
area was subtracted from the "Forest S Natural Area" category as a 
"Natural Area". 

Source: Table 23, pg. 79, "Existing Land Use, Suwannee County, 
Florida" (excluding area within Live Oak City Limits), 
Suwannee County Comprehensive Development Plan , 1974. 

■See Appendix A. 



20 



TABLE l-K 
LAND USE PROFILE 
TAYLOR COUNTY 



CATEGORY 


ACRES''^ 


SQUARE MILES--'^ 


Urban & Bu i 1 t Up 


9,636^ 


15.1 


Agricul ture 


25,665^ 


40.1 


Forested 


621,696^ 


971.7 


Water 


1,599^ 


2.5 


Wetland 






Total Land Area 


656,997 


1,026.9 


Total Water Area 


1,599 


2.5 


Total Area 


658,576 


1 ,029.4^ 



Table 1, pg. 6, "Land Use Inventory, Taylor County", Florida Regional 
Coastal Zone Land Use Analysis, Region 3, North Central Florida , June 
1976. 

Aucilla - Ochlockonee - St. Marks River Basin Water Quality Management 
Plan, Table 22-4 AA-3, pg. 111-123; Table 22-5 AA-3, pg. 111-1^2; Table 
22.5 BA-3, pg. 111-165, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 

This figure is lower than the figure provided in the 1976 Florida 
Statistical Abstract , Table 8.02, pg. 217. That figure is 1,052 square 
miles, as opposed to the above figure of 1,029 square miles. 

"See Append ix A. 



21 



TABLE l-L 
LAND USE PROFILE 
UNION COUNTY 



CATEGORY 


ACRES'"^ 


SQUARE MILES 


Urban & Built Up 


^,2it0^ 


6.3 


Agr icul ture 


26,200 


41.0 


Forested 


99,530^ 


155.4 


Water 


2,080 


3.3 


Wetland 


24,750 


38.7 


Total Land Area 


154,720 


241.4 


Total Water Area 


2,080 


3.3 


Total Area 


156,800 


244.7 



Only 800 acres of institutional lands are considered developed with the 
remainder (7,300 acres) being state owned lands used for agricultural and 
forestry within the correctional facilities grounds. 

Source: Table 1, pg. 21, "Existing Land Use, Unincorporated Union 

County", Union County Comprehensive Plan, 1976-2000 Part 1. 



Total area figure coincides with figure provided in 1976 Flor ida 
Stastical Abstract . 

-See Appendix A. 



22 



PHYSIOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS • 

The following series of maps portray a variety of physical characteristics 
of the Region, as well as existing land uses, considered important to 
discussions of future land use alternatives. A number of other character- 
istics are Identified In an accompanying volume, the Natural Resources 
Study , v/hlch explores the physical characteristics from a somewhat differ- 
ent perspective. The reader may wish to consult that volume for additional 
information, although the maps presented here are considered important to 
the development of the regional land use plan. 

The Information presented on these maps is essential to the construction 

of the land use categories and composite maps addressed later in this study, 



EXISTING URBAN AREAS 

The map on the following page shows the existing urban areas within the 
Region, as well as the major institutions, such as Ralford, the Lake Butler 
Reception and Medical Center, and correctional institutions in Trenton and 
Cross City. Urban areas are not confined to the corporate limits of the 
city, as evidenced by the large areas shaded representing the urbanized 
area In and around Gainesville, Similarly, the shaded areas represent 
urbanized areas as now identified, as opposed to city limits which are 
outlined with dashed lines. In most cases, a city's corporate limits 
extend beyond the areas that are actually built up. A striking example of 
this is the City of Alachua. 



COMMERCIAL FORESTS 

The shaded areas of page 27 represent land owned by commercial timber 
companies and used for the development of forest and forest products. The 
map is limited solely to commercial forests and does not include individ- 
ual or public ownership of forested land, as evidenced by the absence of 
shading in the area of the Osceola National Forest. The map illustrates 
that significant portions of Bradford, Dixie, Lafayette, Taylor and Union 
Counties are used for forest production. A complete listing of ownership 
Is not provided here, but is available at the Council Offices. 

This map Is not Intended to represent total forest area In the Region, 
since It is felt that commercial ownership of forests may have a more 
significant impact upon land uses than Individual ownership. A specific 



23 



vegetation map, without reverence to ownership, is provided In the 
accompanying Natural Resources Study , identifying all lands within the 
Region which are covered by forests. 



SO I LS 

Soils are one of our most valuable resources, and their functions are 
basic to many life processes. Every activity of man is affected by 
soils as a natural starting point, as soils provide the medium for 
growing food and fiber, as well as provide the foundation for homes, 
stores, factories, schools, airports, roads, playgrounds, and other 
human act i v 1 1 ies . 

Soils possess many characteristics and/or properties which directly 
influence the types and feasibility of urban development. These charac- 
teristics include but are not limited to permeability, infiltration, 
wetness, depth to water table, depth to bedrocl<, texture and slope. 
Detailed descriptions including physical and chemical properties as well 
as limitations and capabilities are developed and reported for each kind 
of soil delineated on soil maps. Such maps provide a strong basis for 
developing land use alternatives by local governments and private 
developers. Adequate soil information greatly assists in developing and 
understanding the capabilities and limitations of sites for a variety of 
land use activities. Experience gained from selecting soils for farming, 
ranching and forestry may be applied equally well to selecting and 
evaluating sites for housing, highways, and a variety of other uses. 

Soils maps at various scales and degrees of generalization may be developed 
and utilized along with Interpretations to provide basic planning data for 
rural as well as urbanized areas. The scale and detail of soil maps and 
the level of generalization of soil data required are determined by the 
type of planning desired. Detailed soil maps are designed to meet the 
needs of operational planning, and consequently offer the highest degree 
of precision and predictability. By comparison, general soils maps are 
designed for broad planning purposes. Both general and detailed soil maps 
may be interpreted or explained by using tables, narratives and maps to 
illustrate ratings regarding soil suitabilities, limitations or potential 
for various uses. 

For each soil association defined in the soils atlas an evaluation is 
provided which defines the association's relative degree of limitation 
based upon certain defined uses. Applying only to soils in their natural 
state, the degree and kind of limitation is defined for sanitary 
facilities, community development and water management among other 
potential uses. Soil limitations are Indicated by the ratings; slight, 
moderate, and severe. These are not suitability ratings but more 
precisely, are measures of degree or intensity of soil limitations or 
hazards. As such they do not represent strict restrictions on soil use 
as most soils are suitable for all uses if provisions can be made to 
overcome problems presented. Provided adequate funding is available 



2k 




J 1979 KILOMETERS 

Morlh Central Ftorida Regtonal Planning Council 



EXISTING URBAN AREAS 
AND INSTITUTIONS 



I 

1 



i 




ilOTB KILOMETERS 

Itorlh Central Ftorida Regtonal Planning Council 



COMMERCIAL 
FOREST AREAS 



I I FORESTED AREA 



I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 

I 
I 
I 

i 

L 
I 
[ 

r 

L 

I 



modern engineering techniques may be' utilized to overcome almost any 
soi 1 1 imi tat ion . 

Two soils maps are presented in this study, each map isolating a specific 
soils association to illustrate potential for certain defined uses. Soils 
maps showing all soils associations for the entire Region are provided, 
with explanation, in the Natural Resources Study published by this agency. 
The map on page 31 isolates the soil associations most suitable for genera 
agricultural uses. Of the total of six soil groupings identified for 
agricultural suitability, the two shown here represent the best potential 
for agriculture relative to all the soils groupings identified. It is 
important to note that these ratings do not represent absolute evaluations 
of soil suitabilities for agricultural purposes. Rather, the soil 
associations identified in the general soils atlas was grouped into six 
broad categories according to relative suitabilities for agriculture, 
ranging from best suited to least suited. To obtain specific data 
regarding the agricultural use - crops, pine forest, pasture, etc. - best 
suited for a given soil group, a detailed soils atlas should be consulted. 

The map on page 33 isolates the soils association with the least potential 
for community development. This should not be construed to indicate that 
development is wholly precluded in these areas. However, soil properties 
in these areas may have limitations to community development such that 
overcoming them may prove difficult, costly, and otherwise impractical. 



FLOOD HAZARD AREAS 
River Flood Plains 



These are lands lying along drainage corridors (rivers and streams) that 
are subject to flooding on a regular basis. These areas usually contain 
mixed alluvial, poorly drained soils and natural vegetation that is 
adapted to fluctuating water levels. The vegetation is especially 
important in that it provides diversity to landscape, serves as vital 
habitat for numerous species of birds and animals and performs very 
significant ecological functions for the waters that flow through the 
drainage corridors. 

Development in flood plains is usually very expensive, both initially and 
in terms of continuing maintenance costs. in spite of steadily increased 
expenditures for flood control structures, national losses due to floods 
continue to rise at an alarming rate. It is ironic that the most important 
factor contributing to this situation is persistent invasion of the flood 
plains by those land users most likely to suffer large financial losses 
from floods. While other uses such as forestry, recreation, open space, 
and agriculture may be acceptable in these areas, most development in flood 
plains that does not actually require access to waterfront is likely to 
become an unnecessary financial burden to local, state and/or federal 
governments and should be subject to strict regulations. River flood 
plains are subject to provisions of the federal flood insurance program, 
with special development controls being required for participation in the 
program. 

29 



We t 1 a nd s 

Wetlands or depression flooding is also extensive in the Region, as the 
map illustrates. The discussion provided for river flood plains is also 
pertinent to wetlands, and will not be repeated. A detailed discussion 
of wetlands is offered in the next section of this study. 



Hurricane Flood Zones 

This category encompasses land between the shore line and the 100-year 
flood line; that is, the areas subject to flooding by hurricane driven 
tides that would occur with a statistical probability of at least once 
every 100 years. It should be kept in mind that this frequency prediction 
represents an average that may occur several times within a short time 
span or may be delayed for a considerable period. Most of the heavily 
populated and rapidly growing cities of south Florida have been very 
fortunate within the last three decades and have not been subjected to 
devastating hurricanes. Unfortunately, this has caused a false sense of 
security in many areas, thus setting the stage for natural disasters. 



It should be recognized that hurricane driven tides are accompanied by 
severe wave action and are potentially far more destructive than the 
rising water associated with poor drainage. Future storm losses can be 
minimized, but only if they are anticipated and planned for. This, of 
necessity, will involve education of the general public through emergency 
preparedness programs and imposition of stringent building standards in 
areas subject to hurricanes and flooding. 

It should also be recognized that the Federal Flood Insurance Program 
utilizes the 100-year flood line as a basis for granting flood insurance. 
To qualify for insurance under this program, all new residential construc- 
tion must have ground floor elevations above the 100-year flood stage. 
Other uses have the option of either making ground floor elevation above 
this level or flood proofing buildings to that height. Participation in 
the program is mandatory in order to receive federal financial assistance 
for projects in flood prone areas. In addition, mortgage financing 
through any federally insured financial institution will be withheld from 
projects within identified flood prone areas under the jurisdiction of non- 
participating local governments. 



WETLANDS 



Selected Coastal Marshes 



These are tidal marsh systems having major significance. Such areas are 
valuable habitat for numerous species of birds and terrestrial animals. 
Marsh systems contribute necessary nutrients to adjacent waters, and 
through filtering action help maintain good water quality. Many impor- 
tant marine species are dependent upon marsh systems for survival, and 

30 




MILES 



>ie79 KILOMETCflS 

North Central Florida Regiorui Planning Council 



SOIL SUITABILITY 
FOR AGRICULTURE 



■ ° 

:reasin 
jitabilil 



Increasing .v ., 
Suitability IX'i^i:'] 



I 

I 

I 




SOILS LEAST SUITABLE 

FOR 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 



yiOTa KILOMETERS 

Morlh Central FtoficJa Regional Planning Council 



I 
I 
I 

I 
ll 

I 

i 



I 




7197S KILOMETERS 

Morth Central Florida Regional Planning Counci 



AREAS SUBJECT TO 
100 YEAR FLOOD 



FLOOD HAZARD AREAS 



k 




MILES 



WETLANDS 



WETLANDS 



JX97B KILOMETERS 

Norlh Central Fhxlda Regional Planning Council 



I 



preservation of these areas is considered crucial to the maintenance of 
marine fisheries. Marsh systems also provide a storm-buffering function 
which helps to reduce damages to coastal development. Included in this 
category are high marsh areas generally considered as being above the 
mean high water line. Under Chapters 253 and/or 403, Florida Statutes, 
dredging and/or filling in portions of coastal marshes is regulated by 
the Department of Environmental Regulation. These areas are also subject 
to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 



Selected Freshwater Swamps and Marshes 

As identified in the Florida Regional Coastal Zone Management Atlas, these 
are areas having a high water table and supporting extensive stands of 
water-tolerant vegetation. Such areas are unsuitable for intensive land 
uses without major alteration. They are usually of substantial ecological 
importance and serve as natural retention mechanisms for surface water. 
Some swamps and marshes may also function as aquifer recharge areas. 
Development in swamp and marsh areas typically involves a high initial 
cost and a high continuing cost that is often borne by government. Such 
problems as periodic flooding, poor stability of roads and streets, 
creation of health hazards, and subsequent expenditures of tax money for 
corrective measures are often encountered in such areas. Development in 
freshwater swamps and marshes, therefore, is likely to become an unneces- 
sary tax burden. 

Because of the ecological significance of these areas, their value for 
water retention purposes and their intrinsic unsu i tabi 1 i ty for intensive 
development, they should be managed to ensure against modifications that 
will significantly impair their identified functions or values. The 
state and federal governments presently exercise only limited authority 
over these areas, except in areas contiguous to "waters of the state" 
and in areas of public ownership such as wildlife refuges, state and 
national parks, state wilderness areas, and areas subject to flowage 
easements. Many freshwater swamps and marshes are in private ownership 
with very few effective controls on their use. 

Due to scale limitations, some acreage mapped as wetlands includes low 
flatwoods pine lands which are intermingled with cypress ponds, strands, 
ti-ti drains and hardwood swamps. 



HISTORICAL, ARCHEOLOG I CAL, AND NATURAL AREAS 

These are areas of outstanding historical and archeolog ical significance 
which reflect Florida's rich and colorful history. These sites provide 
the informational base upon which our cultural heritage is built and 
reflect our ethnic origins. 

Archeolog ical and historical sites can be divided into three functional 
categories: informational, aesthetic, and commemorative. Informational 
sites are those sites whose primary significance is derived from the data 

39 



they have provided, or are likely to provide, to archeolog i sts and allied 
researchers. in many cases, these sites provide the only extant avenue 
to the understanding of our pre-history and history, and the physical 
disturbance of these sites by unqualified individuals could result in the 
irretrievable loss of a segment of our cultural heritage. Examples of 
information sites include small, seasonly occupied aboriginal village 
sites, aboriginal hunting sites, kitchen middens, aboriginal and early 
historic farmsteads, military encampments, among others. 

Aesthetic sites represent the best known examples of archeolog i cal and 
historical sites. These sites are generally characterized as having an 
obvious, and usually distinctive, physical appearance. Examples of this 
type site include large burial mound and ceremonial mound aboriginal 
sites, and architecturally significant structures and complexes, such as 
the Gamble Mansion and Viscaya. A number of these sites may also be 
considered as informational, since they contain original data unobtainable 
el sewhere. 

Commemorative sites are perhaps the least significant type of archeo- 
logical and historical site. They are important, generally speaking, due 
to their symbolic association with some aspect of our cultural heritage. 
Examples of this type site include the Florida Meridian Marker and the Old 
Spanish Trail. Some commemorative sites also contain informational and 
aesthetic elements. 

It should be stressed that archeolog ica 1 and historical sites are a non- 
regenerative resource, and each individual site is unique, representing an 
irreplaceable element of our ethnic and cultural heritage. Florida is 
endowed with a valuable assortment of such areas, and many of these sites 
are presently protected by state and federal legislation. Many important 
sites however, are not currently protected, and the state is often 
dependent upon private interests and local governments to assist in the 
protection of these valuable resources. 

There are several areas of natural significance that contain natural 
features of an unusual or unique character, usually of comparatively small 
geographic extent. Examples range from such diverse features as coral 
reefs to unique sinkholes, caves and springs. Also included are waters 
given a "special stream classification" by the Department of Environmental 
Regulation. These Include wild or scenic rivers, spring fed streams and 
others which have exceptional scenic, ecological, or recreational value to 
the public at large. The state has incorporated many such areas into Its 
State Park System or protected them in other ways. There remain, however, 
many unprotected areas that are of significant value to both local and 
state interests. 



kO 




y»97B KILOMETERS 

North Central Florida Regtorwl Planning Council 



SIGNIFICANT 
NATURAL AREAS 



SITE LIST 

1 SUWANNEE RIVER 

2 WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER 

3 PINHOOK SWAMP 

4 SANTA FE HEADWATERS 

5 AUCILLA RIVER SINK 

6 TIDE SWAMP 

7 GULF COASTAL MARSH 

8 HIXTOWN SWAMP 

9 SANTA FE RIVER 

10 OSCEOLA NATIONAL FOREST 

11 PAYNES PRAIRIE STATE PRESERVE 

12 SAN FELASCO HAMMOCK 

13 ICHETUCKNEE SPRINGS STATE PARK 

14 CALIFORNIA SWAMP 

15 AUSTIN CAREY MEMORIAL FOREST 



• NATURAL 
A HISTORIC 
n ARCHEOLOGICAL 



POPULATION FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO GROWTH PATTERNS 

The anticipated population and economic growth within the north central 
Florida region has been examined in detail in the 1976 Population and 
Economic Study prepared and published by this agency. Table 2 on the 
following page reduces to one table the population estimates for the 
Region as a whole and each of the 11 constituent counties. This table 
forms the basis for a discussion of population and economic factors 
contributing to urban growth and the consequent impact of that growth 
upon land uses. 

The population within the Region is expected to grow approximately 
168,700 people by the turn of the century, representing an increase of 
66 percent over the estimated 1975 population. Employing a regional 
average for household size to the projected population increase suggests 
that the number of households in the Region will increase by more than 
7^,000 during that same time period. Since each new household requires a 
place to live, household formation is directly related to an increased 
demand for housing and supportive community facilities, such as transpor- 
tation systems, water and sewer services, and utilities. The demand for 
housing will be concentrated around existing urban areas, as opposed to 
new communities, as the existing communities already have the infrastruc- 
ture necessary to provide these support services. 

Furthermore, as incomes rise, so do levels of consumption. With higher 
incomes comes the ability to purchase automobiles, travel, purchase larger 
homes, perhaps even second homes or vacation homes, and recreation. 
Affluence also affects the demand for more support services such as trans- 
portation facilities, utility extensions, shopping centers, education and 
health services. The Commission on Population Growth and the American 
Future has estimated that by the year 2000 average family income will rise 
from the current (1970) $12,000 to more than $21,000 in constant dollars, 
even if the work week were reduced to 30 hours and even if the population 
grew at the rate of three children per family. Furthermore, the Commission 
suggests : 

"The average individual's consumption is expected to be more 
than twice what it is today, whether the population grows at 
the two-child or the three-child rate. As income increases, 
people show an increased preference for services, such as 
education and health services, as compared to manufactured goods. 
So, the population of the year 2000 will boost its consumption 
of services faster than the consumption of manufactured goods." 



^3 



TABLE 2 
POPULATION PROFILES 
REGION 111 



AREA/COUNTY 


1975 est. 
256,000 


1980 est. 
288,200 


1990 est. 
355,700 


2000 est. 


Reg Ion 1 I 1 


424,700 


Alachua 


130,800 


1^7,000 


182,600 


218,900 


Bradford 


16,300 


18,100 


22,300 


26,500 


Col umb i a 


25,300 


32,200 


39,700 


47,300 


Dixie 


6,600 


7,400 


9,200 


11 ,000 


Gi Ichrist 


5,100 


5,800 


7,400 


9,000 


Hamilton 


8,600 


9,500 


11 ,400 


13,400 


Lafayette 


3,100 


3,500 


4,500 


5,500 


Mad i son 


1^,400 


15,700 


18,400 


21 ,400 


Suwannee 


18,900 


21 ,200 


26,200 


31 ,400 


Taylor 


U,600 


16,300 


20,200 


24,100 


Un i on 


10,400 


11,500 


13,900 


16,300 



Source: 1975 estimate - 1976 Florida Statistical Abstract , Table 1.24, pg . 8 
"Population Projections" 

1980 - 2000 estimates - 1976 Population and Economic Study , North 
Central Florida Regional Planning Council; some data previously 
unpubl I shed . 



44 



Thus, more people with more money, increasing the demand for housing and 
support services while maintaining a desire for low-density living in an 
urban area (with the infrastructure necessary to provide these services), 
translates into larger urban areas. This, in turn, means a greater need 
of land for urban purposes. 

Table 3 indicates the amount of area, in square miles, needed to 
accommodate expected population increases in the Region to the year 2000. 
Comparing Tables Zand 3, two points are noteworthy. First, those 
counties with the highest population in 1975 are expected to show the 
largest absolute growth in population to the year 2000, while coinci- 
dental ly showing the highest percentage increase as well. These counties 
are population and economic centers within the Region, and are projected 
to maintain these roles in the years to come. 

It follows logically that these same counties are also anticipated to 
experience the greatest lateral expansion of existing urban areas, as a 
consequence of accommodating additional people. However, this conclusion, 
as v/sl 1 as the figures in Table 2, are based upon two assumptions: 

a) That development trends continue the current course of 
low-density residential building as opposed to a shift 
to higher density and/or vertical development; 

b) The figures do not wholly preclude the advent of new 
communities being built, rather, represent total land 
area expected to be used for urban purposes. 

Although low density and high density development will each ultimately 
result in a lateral expansion of urban areas, the low density alterna- 
tives will result in the expansion occurring at a faster pace. The 
assumption is made that the population in Region III will continue to 
prefer low density residential living and will manifest this preference 
in buying and building practices. 

New communities are not considered to be a major force in community develop- 
ment within Region III for a variety of reasons. First, population growth 
is expected to be concentrated around current communities with their 
existing or planned abilities to provide community services to residents. 
Further, employment opportunities are expected to continue to locate around 
existing employment centers, to reduce cost associated with meeting energy 
requirements - transportation costs, utility costs and building costs. 
The need for new communities to service industrial employment needs is 
thereby lessened. 

Finally, new communities would require the establishment of an entire 
Infrastructure to serve community residents, the most expensive of which 
might be water and sewer systems, waste treatment and disposal systems, a 
transportation network and electric and gas utilities. Providing these 
services, plus other aspects of a community infrastructure, will probably 
prove too costly to make new communities a viable alternative. 



45 



TABLE 3 
URBANIZED AREA ESTIMATES, IN SQUARE MILES OF AREA 





1975 


1980 


1990 


2000 


REGION 1 1 1 


250.00 


281.44 


347.36 


414.75 


Al achua 


86.3^ 


97.03 


120.53 


144.49 


Bradford 


3^.05 


37.81 


46.58 


55.36 


Co 1 umbi a 


31.^5 


40.03 


49.35 


58.80 


Dixie 


11.82 


13.25 


16.48 


19.70 


G i 1 chr i St 


12.28 


13.97 


17.82 


21 .67 


Hami 1 ton 


16.97 


18.74 


22.49 


26.44 


Lafayette 


3.5 


3.95 


5.08 


6.21 


Mad i son 


6.5 


7.09 


8.31 


9.66 


Suwannee 


25.72 


28.85 


35.65 


42.73 


Taylor 


15.06 


16.81 


20.84 


24.86 


Un ion 


6.31 


6.98 


8.43 


9.89 



Assumpt ions : 

1. That current density ratios within Urban S Built Up Areas 
remain static. 



Corol 1 ary a. 



Corol 1 ary b . 



That development trends continue current course as 
opposed to moving from lateral, low density development 
to higher density and/or vertical expansion. 

Greater Urban and Built Up Area figures does not limit 
growth to existing urbanized areas, does not preclude 
"new community" type development. 



••'The sum of each column may not equal the Region III total, due to the 
rounding of figures. 

'-'■See Appendix B for methodology. 



46 



The energy crisis and the anticipated duration of that situation may 
significantly alter people's ideas regarding life-styles, especially if 
the situation worsens, which will in turn affect residential development, 
consumption patterns and eventually, land uses. A more restrictive energy 
situation could result in a shift to higher density development, as 
developers begin to recognize the economics of buying and developing land 
where utilities and services are already provided. Furthermore, denser, 
self-contained communities may become more attractive to the consumer who 
is concerned about the distance to be traveled to and from' work or the 
supermarket or the shopping mall. 

It is impossible at this juncture to predict the future energy situation 
or the ramifications thereof. Local governments should remain flexible 
enough to review community development plans periodically and to alter 
these plans as the need is identified. 



^7 



II 



HI 



ill 



FUTURE LAND USE 



PHYSICAL FACTORS 



Existing Urban Areas 

The existing urban areas In the Region play a major role in determining 
future land use, since these areas are expected to accommodate the greatest 
share of the population growth between now and the turn of the century. As 
these areas experience population and economic growth, there will be demands 
to expand the size of the community to allow for residential development, 
the location of schools and other community facilities, and the placement 
of business and industrial areas. The transportation network within a 
community will be expanded and improved to provide easier access within the 
community as well as with other cities, states and market centers. Each 
city and county government must engage in and complete a comprehensive plan 
pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, including as 
one component of this larger plan a land use element. 

The role of these areas in determining future land use is in large part a 
continuation of their current roles as population and economic centers. 
There are several reasons for this expectation, as alluded to earlier. 
Urban areas have many features which people and businesses alike are cogni- 
zant of when relocating. Electric and gas utilities, as well as water and 
sewer systems and solid waste disposal mechanisms, are usually assumed to 
exist in a metropolitan area, and a business may investigate to ensure that 
the systems can provide the service needed for that business to profitably 
operate. Roads, streets and s ignal i zat ion providing reasonable transit 
between home and work, or home and shopping, or recreation, or schools, or 
church, usually exists in urban areas. These same facilities, assisted 
perhaps by other transportation facilities such as airports, serve the dual 
purpose of providing ways for goods and commerce to come into the community, 
while allowing local merchants to export their goods to other market areas. 
Community facilities such as schools, fire and police protection, parks and 
open space, benefit everyone, and must expand with population and economic 
growth to avoid extending these services beyond the ability to adequately 
and safely provide them. Finally, a community infrastructure exists, a 
government or an orderly system of providing these and other services, and 
of managing the community. 

For these and other reasons that have not been mentioned, urban areas are 
expected to attract the vast majority of the projected population growth 



49 



In the Region. Along with this concentration of people will come a concen- 
tration of employment opportunities, and cities that are economic centers 
today are expected to continue to be so throughout the coming years. 



Soil Limitations 



As discussed in an earlier section, some soils associations do not lend 
themselves to use for community development and these areas have been 
identified in the map entitled, "Soils Least Suitable for Community 
Development". This does not suggest that these soils cannot be used for 
some other purpose, although in some cases the same soils may be unsuitable 
for agriculture as well. The ability of these soils to accommodate these 
or other uses may be altered, but only at prohibitive costs. 

A more difficult situation exists at the other end of the spectrum, how- 
ever. Some soils are highly suited for agricultural use as well as 
community development, as can be seen by comparing the two maps in the 
Natural Resource Study entitled "Soil Suitability for Agriculture" and 
"Soil Suitability for Community Development". The point is that many soil 
groups that are relatively highly suited for agricultural uses also 
possess qualities making them highly suited for community development. 
Moreover, most of the cities within the Region are built in soil groupings 
with the highest suitability for agriculture, a fact that probably dates 
back to the beginning of these cities In a predominately agrarian society. 
Consequently, lateral expansion of these cities will. In many cases, con- 
vert to urban use soil that is among the best in the Region for agriculture, 

Conflicting land use capabilities raises several questions which have been 
addressed here and must be addressed again and in much detail at the local 
level. The basic question raised is what constitutes the highest and best 
use of the land, agriculture or community development? There is no single 
answer with universal application; the approach taken here Is that prime 
agricultural land should be preserved for that purpose, and conversion to 
urban use should be minimized, if not wholly precluded. This approach is 
tempered by the following points: 

a) Many existing urban areas are surrounded by prime agricul- 
tural land, which is recommended for preservation; 

b) These urban areas are expected to experience population 
growth, which in turn will result in the physical expansion 
of the urbanized areas to accommodate this growth; 

— c) The need for urban expansion represents a small percentage 
of the total land area. Assuming that urban areas expand 
while maintaining the current density, urban area needs in 
the year 2000 are expected to be an additional 165 square 
miles, representing a 66 percent increase over today's 
figures, covering 6.6 percent of the total land area in 
the Region, as opposed to 3-7 percent today; 
d) These urban areas must be afforded the ability to expand, 
with the tacit assumption that the local decision makers 

50 



will manage that expansion in an orderly manner, minimizing 
adverse impact upon the environment and natural systems; 
e) Based upon the maps presented in this study and the Natural 
Resources Study , there is more than enough land available 
that is suitable for development that is not also suited for 
agriculture to accommodate much more population and industrial 
growth than is anticipated in this Region. 

Thus, a compromise of sorts is reached. While assuming that lateral 
expansion will occur in an orderly and manageable fashion around existing 
urban boundaries, prime agricultural land within the Region will be 
preserved for that purpose. This action will benefit the agrarian economy 
within the Region, will prevent an intense use of these lands which would 
irreparably alter the natural systems, and will provide some measure of 
open space for the Region's citizens while allowing at the same time for 
the expansion of urban areas. 



F 1 oodp 1 a i n s 

Development In and around rivers, depressions and hurricane flood plains 
often appears quite feasible and even desirable when one considers the 
relative infrequency of major storms and resultant flooding. However, 
continued development within a flood plain usually increases the potential 
for human and economic loss, as this development effectively restricts the 
ability of the flood plain to absorb water and inhibits the flow of water 
from the land. Consequently, flood volume and velocity are increased by 
such development, and downstream flood hazards therefore increase. While 
construction of storm sewers, canals and other stream channel improvements 
may alleviate the potential for flooding problems within urban areas, such 
activity may also aggravate the problem by increasing the volume and 
velocity of flood waters flowing into stream channels. Clearly, proper 
management of the river flood plains is important in urbanized or urbanizing 
areas to ensure against property damage and loss of life. 

Tidal flooding also has the potential to result in extensive damage, 
particularly along the coastal areas of the Region. Most of this type of 
flooding Is the result of hurricanes or major storm events near the coast 
which cause onshore winds for several hours duration. A 100-year frequency 
storm for coastal areas in Dixie and Taylor Counties may result In tides as 
high as 1^ feet above Mean Sea Level. Development in the coastal zone must 
be properly managed. 

Flood plains provide valuable services when left in a natural state. In 
addition to providing flood ways to remove storm waters, wildlife may find 
refuge in vegatation that often flourishes In or near well watered areas. 
Groundwater recharge occurs through soils during high water levels. Flood 
plains may also provide useful open spaces near urban areas, and recreation 
Is enhanced in natural settings. 

Flood prone areas have been identified and delineated in the Natural Resources 
Study. The map provided in this study shows only those areas identified as 



51 



lying completely within the boundaries of the statistical 100-year flood. 
These areas have been placed in the conservation land use category, 
suggesting that while development is not wholly precluded, care must be 
taken to prevent obstruction within the flood plain, as well as human and 
economic damage. 



We t 1 an d s 

These areas have often been regarded as worthless land suitable only for 
land filling, or perhaps agricultural uses if properly channelized and 
drained. However, wetlands have recently been recognized as providing a 
service vital to the maintenance of natural systems. Wetlands protect 
vegetation and wildlife that are dependent upon water for survival; serve 
as a medium for the propagation of food supplies within the food chain; 
serve as a stopgap against salt water intrusion in coastal areas; serve as 
surface water storage and aquifer recharge areas, and assimilate urban 
pollutants. Other specific and valuable functions are listed in the 
Natural Resources Study . Proper management of wetland areas Is necessary 
to ensure the continued health, safety and welfare of area residents, and 
to protect the economy of the state. The majority of wetlands are also 
wooded, and thus serve an economic as well as a natural function. 

Wetlands In the Region have been identified on the map so entitled on page 
37. The Importance of these wetlands is such that they have been placed 
In the preservation category In order to protect the natural values and 
important functions associated with them. 



SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS 

Social and economic factors influencing growth are often difficult to 
distinguish and isolate from the physical factors of urban expansion, 
since the three are all interwoven in a complex web of relationships. A 
previous chapter examined In some detail the anticipated population growth 
for the Region, by county, and the resultant need for urban areas in terms 
of square miles of land consumed. Why this Is happening Is tied in some 
measure to the economies of the State and nation. 

Previous studies have Indicated that the State population has been 
Increasing at a rate approximating 6,000 people per week, and that 90 
percent of the State's population growth in the recent years has resulted 
from In-mlgration from other parts of the country. The national economy 
is related to this growth. Indicating that a large number of people are 
financially able to move to Florida. The state is Involved because 
employment opportunities are either here in fact or are perceived to be 
here and thus attract these people to migrate. Florida's climate may also 
be a factor, especially to a society becoming Increasingly energy conscious 
The comparatively mild climate may either reduce utility bills, or be more 
acceptable In harsh winters, bills notwithstanding. 



52 



The State's population growth has been experienced primarily in the larger 
existing urban areas, notably those along the coast and in the southern 
portions of the State. This is a trend that may recede somewhat in later 
years as these areas become more crowded, as land and housing becomes more 
and perhaps too expensive, and as cities and businesses begin to experience 
the effects of a dwindling potable water supply. 

Speculating for the moment, this Region may become more and more attractive 
to those who can accept a mildly cold winter. There- are vast stretches of 
open space here; the area is served by two interstate highways, as well as 
other roads providing easy access to cities and marl<ets; the area is not 
crowded, certainly not to the extent of southern Florida, and land and 
housing prices are not as inflated. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, 
the area overlies a large portion of the Florldan Aquifer which possesses 
vast but as yet unidentified quantities of fresh water. 

Other, more complex reasoning exists. However, the assumption implicit to 
this study is that existing population and economic centers in the Region 
will continue in those functional roles in the future, as explained by 
trend analysis in the 1976 Population and Economic Study. 



LAND USE CATEGORIES 

Land within the Region has been divided into three general use categories: 
preservation, conservation, and development. The definitions of these 
categories, and the accompanying maps, are presented here to assist local 
decision makers and citizens when faced with the resolution of issues 
regarding land use and land management. These maps are not specific to 
local land uses, although local land use plans were consulted where they 
existed. Nor are these maps intended as a substitute for local planning. 
The definitions and maps are intended as general policy guidelines, within 
which local governments should plan according to their specific goals and 
object I ves . 

The assumptions are restated: 

a) Existing urban centers are expected to experience population and 
economic growth, which will result in the physical expansion of 
the urban areas; 

b) The need for urban expansion represents a small percentage of 
the total land area. Urban areas constitutes approximately 3-7 
percent of the total land area within the Region today; this 
percentage is expected to increase to 6.6 percent by the year 
2000; 

c) While urban areas are expected to expand, that expansion will 
occur In such a way as to minimize adverse Impacts upon the 
environment and natural systems; 

d) There Is sufficient land available for development such that 
prime agricultural lands need not be converted to urban uses. 



53 



These assumptions may be altered by several factors, including a change in 
the energy supply question, a climatic change, a continued slowdown in the 
State or national economies, or a change in the preferences of people 
regarding low density living. 



Preservat ion 

The preservation classification includes those lands identified as having 
major ecological, hydrolog i ca 1 , physiological, historical, or socioeconomic 
importance to the public at large. Preserving the integrity of these lands 
enhances the quality of life for residents and tourists, and will help 
maintain an ecological balance in the Region. Public policy should attempt 
to protect the functions or values associated with these areas to the maxi- 
mum degree legally possible consistent with private property rights as 
determined by the courts. Sustaining committments regarding functions and 
values should be made only by elected officials, and only after full 
consideration of pertinent factors and an awareness of long-term 
consequences . 

Preservation areas Include: 

Marine Grass Beds, 

Selected Coastal Marshes, 

Selected Fresh Water Swamps and Marshes (Wetlands), 

Historical, Archeolog i ca 1 and Natural Areas, 

Parks and Recreation Areas, 

Prime Agricultural Areas, 

Ri vers. 



Conservat ion 

Lands and waters having some intrinsic value attached to them are included 
In the conservation category, indicating that while development is not 
wholly precluded within these areas. It is to be strongly discouraged. 
Conservation areas are also lands and waters identified as having certain 
natural or institutional use limitations which require special precautions 
prior to conversion to development. Failure to consider the natural or 
Institutional limitations may result in consequences harmful to the public 
health, safety and welfare, while failure to consider the intrinsic vajue 
of an area may result in a significant aesthetic loss. 



w 



As a land use classification falling between preservation and development, 
conservation areas are areas where development should be strongly dis- 
couraged and allowed only after thorough consideration by elected officials 
of the natural, institutional or intrinsic limitations attached to the 
1 and. 

Conservation areas include: 

Areas subject to the 100-year flood, 



54 




PRESERVATION 



D 



PRESERVATION 



MILES 

Jl»7« KILOMETERS 

Noflh Ccniral Flofiaa Regional Planning Council 



The Inlormatlnn provided on this map 
p:!rtnys ph.'sioal chra-leristics of 
the land without rrgrd tor the location 
or e-pansion of urban arejs and/or 
institutions. Th3 Land Use Plan Map 
on p-ge 63 ihiws the d-ta presented 
here in relation to existing urbsn 
?re3s. prqecfed future urban needs, 
rnstitutions, transpjrtation networks, 
and othor land use categories. The ' 
re,-der is cautioned not to make 
interpretive conclusions without 
consulting the test and the Land Use 
Plan Map, where the social, economic 
and physical functions of urban areas 
are discussed and illustrated in detail 




yiOTt KILOMETERS 

Noflh Cenlral Florida Regional Planning Council 



CONSERVATION 



:^)-<j^ 
'-^- ^ ^ 



CONSERVATION 



Tile Information provided on this map 
pirtrnys ph/'iiral chvacteristics of 
ttie land with Hit r-g;rd for the location 
or e pansi~n of urban areas and/or 
instit'itions. Th2 Land Use Plan Map 
on p g^ 63 h ws the dita presented 
here in rel!ti;n to existing urban 
■reT^, pr jO' ted future urban needs, 
instil -ti?ns, tranrp rtation networks, 
and ilh r I r.d i.se c.-tcgcries. The 
re der is ca;:li ned not to malie 
i:.t:rp.-,li e cndusions without 
c<-ns i'i g h; to t and Ihs Land Use 
PI'n M p. h;ro Ih; social, economic 
a. d ph ic I I'H'^ti ns of urban areas 
are di^c^sscd a d illjstr.tad in detail. 




yi076 KILOMETERS 

Morlh Central FkKida RegKDrwl Planning Council 



DEVELOPMENT 
POTENTIAL 



AREAS WITH FEWEST 
LIMITATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT 



me Information provided on this map 
portriys ph si al chiracteristics of 
the land wilti;i:t r;g-rd for the location 
or e'.pansinn of abin areas and/or 
instit'.'tions. Th3 Land Uie Plan I«ap 
on p g2 63 -h ws the d.ta presented 
here in relation to existing urban 
rrens, pr jcited future urban needs, 
institL:tions, trancp rtation networl<s, 
and oth;r 1 r.d .se c tg r;es. The 
re:der is caiti ned n':t to make 
interp;ct!\e c ncl.;i:ns wilhout 
cons"iti: g th3 te t and Ih; Land Use 
Plan M p, v.h3re th; scci I. economic 
a-d ph ■ic-l f;incti ns of u'bn areas 
are discubscd a: d illusir ted in detail. 



Significant Forest Areas, 

Game Management Areas, 

Significant Mineral Deposits, 

Acquifer Recharge Areas, 

Lands with significant soil, drainage, or other physical restrictions. 

Noise Hazard Areas. 



Development 

Development areas Include those areas which, 1) are presently developed; 
2) are presently undeveloped, or vacant or are used for other purposes, 
including forestry and agriculture, which are intrinsically suitable for 
intensive development; and 3) are presently undeveloped having minor 
physical limitations such as poor drainage, poor soil permeability or 
load-bearing capabilities, which can be corrected. Although these lands 
are not generally considered to be environmentally sensitive, development 
decisions regarding lands with high agricultural potential should be 
considered with respect to long-term impacts to food production. Public 
policy should attempt to guide future growth and development into areas 
having the best Intrinsic suitability, while simultaneously attempting to 
minimize and neutralize any identified conflicts. Flexibility should be 
incorporated into decision-making to address mining activities and the 
prospect of new communities as the need arises. 

Development areas Include: 

Urban Development, 

Rural Development, 

Institutions (significant correctional, medical or educational), 

Transportat ion , 

Uti 1 I ties. 

Mi ni ng , 

New Communities. 



LAND USE PLAN 

This composite map shows the relation of each land use category to the 
others, as well as to the existing urban areas, the expected expansion of 
these areas, and the existing transportation system. County lines have 
been added to further assist the reader in identifying the relative 
position and scale of each land use category. 

The majority of the land within the Region has been placed In either the 
preservation or conservation categories, indicative of the Importance 
associated with maintaining the natural integrity of these areas. Further- 
more, excluding the lands surrounding existing urban centers, which has 
already been assumed as land for conversion to urban uses, there is 
sufficient land identified In the Region as suitable for development to 
accommodate all and more of the projected population increase. An 



61 



important distinction to note is that the lands placed in the development 
category are not suggested as being best suited for any and all develop- 
ment; rather, those lands are identified as possessing the fewest apparent 
physical limitations to development. The actual cost of developing a 
parcel of such land may prove prohibitive in one area of the Region and 
economically feasible In another. In all cases, development should be 
preceded by a thorough investigation of the environmental impacts not only 
to the immediate area but to other natural systems and areas as well. 
Such a local and interlocal impact analysis should identify and correct or 
avoid adverse impacts to the environment or to future human development, 
such as aquifer pollution, destruction of wetlands, and downstream flooding, 
among others. 



LAND USE ISSUES 

Conflicting Land Use Capabilities - This has been discussed previously in 
some detail. The land use categories and maps defined here are recommended 
as a policy guide to local governments, in conjunction with the data 
compiled In the Natural Resources Study . Local governments are strongly 
urged to recognize the values associated with these lands and to accept the 
land use assumptions and categories as described herein. 

Water Supply - The Region rests atop a large portion of Floridan Aquifer 
and possesses a number of fresh water springs and rivers. While the supply 
of fresh water appears to be vast, it is as yet of undefined quantity, and 
it would not be wise from a planning perspective to assume that the supply 
is unlimited. Care must be taken to ensure that development does not 
result in further salt water intrusion into the aquifer, or in the intro- 
duction of pollutants into the aquifer, or to a significant lowering of 
the water table. Likewise, the rivers must be protected from abuses by 
developments, as rivers constitute a valuable natural resource not only as 
a source of fresh water, but also as wildlife habitats and centers of 
recreational activities. 

Questions and issues regarding water supply and use are the primary responsi 
bility of Water Management Districts, and the Region contributes land area 
to two. They are: 1) the Suwannee River Water Management District; and 
2) the St. John's River Water Management District. The largest portion of 
the Region lies within the boundaries of the Suwannee WMD . 

More detailed information can be obtained from the chapter entitled "Water 
Resources" from the accompanying Natural Resources Study . 

Energy - Concerns for energy consumption rates along with costs may alter 
land use patterns within and around urban centers. Cities may become more 
compact, with higher densities than exist today if people are willing to 
concede some freedom of space for relief from utility and transportation 
costs. Vertical, as opposed to lateral, expansion may become more 
acceptable. 



62 




^t976 KILOMETERS 

North Centfal Flofida Reflional Planning Council 



LAND USE PLAN 
YEAR 2000 



,i!,..|.m.j,,. 



EXISTING URBAN, 
INSTITUTIONS 



FUTURE URBAN 



DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 



i^;^^ CONSERVATION 






PRESERVATION 



Due to limitations of scale 
incurred when reducing data to a 
map of this size, representations 
of "Future Urban" areas may 
appear disproportionate with the 
text of the study or with 
existing comprehensive or develop- 
ment plans. The reader is 
further advised to consult the 
Goals, Objectives and Policies in 
this study when viewing and 
interpreting this map. 



New Commun i t i es - County and regional governments may be faced with the 
prospects of new communities, but this is considered unlikely. In 
addition, new communities are discouraged several times in this report, 
and local governments are urged to support this position in the land use 
and development policy statements. 



65 



[1 



GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES 

The goals, objectives and policies are intended as policy statements as 
a supplemental guide to local decision makers. Included here are the 
goals, objectives and policies pertinent to land use and natural resources 



67 



LAND USE 

GOAL: To manage growth and guide development within the Region 

utilizing land management techniques to maximize efficiency 
in (land) use while minimizing current and potential long- 
term detrimental impacts to the land, natural resources or 
the qual i ty of 1 i fe. 

OBJECTIVE: To encourage the orderly and harmonious development and 
redevelopment of existing communities. 

POLICIES: To maintain and enhance the quality of the environment by 
the proper use and development of land, within the toler- 
ances of natural systems. 

To utilize energy and natural resources prudently and 
efficiently in the use and development of land. 

To employ land use guidelines to preserve land and natural 
resources for use by future generations. 

To assess a wide variety of alternatives to lateral expan- 
sion of communities to accommodate the growth of human 
sett lements . 

To encourage the revl tal I zat Ion and redevelopment of 
existing communities, recycling natural resources where 
possible, as opposed to initiating new communities. 

OBJECTI VE : To protect and promote the health, safety, social and 
economic well-being of residents within the Region by 
properly managing land development. 

POL I C I ES : To support the preservation of areas of historical and 
archaeological significance. 

To encourage the preservation of areas of unique agricul- 
tural s i gn I f i cance . 

To encourage the judicious use of those lands which are 
suitable for both agriculture and development by providing 
local governments with the most up-to-date Information 
available for use In the decision-making process. 

OBJECTI VE : To protect and maintain the desirable social and economic 
characteristics and functions of urban areas in a manner 
consistent with the capabilities of the natural and man- 
made systems of the area. 

POL IC I ES : To encourage the provision of adequate community services 
and fac I 1 1 1 les . 



69 



To assist loca] governments in the development and implemen- 
tation of comprehensive plans. 

OBJECTI VE : To manage land development in an equitable manner based 
upon a plan implemented according to consistent develop- 
ment standards. 

POL I C I ES : To distribute growth and development within the Region in a 
manner consistent with support capabilities of available 
resources . 

To assist local governments In the development and Implemen- 
tation of comprehensive plans, Including but not limited to 
land use guidelines, zoning and subdivision regulations. 



NATURAL RESOURCES: GENERAL 

GOAL: Support the optimal use of the Region's resources, prevent 

their further degredation and rectify past damage. 

OBJ ECT I VE : 1. Plan for and promote the wise use of both renewable 

and non-renewable natural resources. 

2. Foster the development of human benefits obtainable 
from the natural environment. 

3. Disseminate Information to local governments and the 
general public about the elements of the natural and 
man-made environment, their interrelationships and 
major problems and opportunities they present to 
community and regional development. 

k. Provide leadership and a workable strategy for the 

efficient management of the Region's natural resources 

5. Promote responsible development within the tolerances 
of natural systems. 

6. Encourage the preservation of the Region's important 
open spaces. 

POLICIES: To Incorporate elements of resource management Into all 
plans and programs. 



Rock and Mineral Resources 

GOALS: 1. To conserve and provide for the wise management of 

rock and mineral resources. 



70 



2. To insure that land reclamation is accomplished in a 
manner compatible with the natural environment. 

OBJECTIVE: To plan for and guide the mining and utilization and mineral 
resources tempered by a consideration of the balance between 
long-term national, state and regional needs as well as 
regional environmental and social cost. 

POLICIES: 1. To promote land reclamation in mi n ing' areas . 

2. Encourage planned land use in areas to be strip mined. 

3. Encourage local governments to enact mining and reclam- 
ation ordinances and assist in their formulation upon 
request . 

4. To encourage the use of under-utilized renewable 
resources over finite resources and encourage the 
recycling of resources. 

5. Endorse and encourage the implementation of more 
efficient mining techniques. 

Water Resources 

GOALS : 1. Support the attainment of "swimable and fishable" 

waters throughout the Region by 1985 consistent with 
national goals as expressed in PL 92-500. 

2. Assist in the protection and management of the surface 
and ground waters of the Region to insure the availa- 
bility of an adequate quantity and quality of water to 
al 1 users . 

3- Encourage the recognition of and respect for the 
benefits afforded and the limitations imposed by 
coastal marshes, swamps, flood plains and other wet- 
land areas. 

OBJECTIVES: 1. To incorporate state and federal environmental policies 

and standards in the regional plans and programs 
involving the management and protection of water 
resources . 

2. To control growth in recharge areas so that normal 
recharge functions will not be impaired. 



3- To pursue programs, such as ' 208 ' areawide waste water 
management planning, which will afford the Region 
I mechanisms for water quality management. 



71 



k. To plan for the rational development or non-develop- 
ment of sensitive wetland areas. 

POL! C I ES : 1. To continue to seel< planning designation for this 

Council and Planning District III and work for the 
subsequent implementation of a ' 208 ' areawide waste 
water management plan for the region. 

2. To plan for modifications to the natural hydrologic 
conditions by structural improvements only when 
determined that such activity is in the best long-term 
publ i c interest . 

3. Discourage use of septic tanks, fertilizer, pesticides, 
and other contaminants on land adjacent to estuaries, 
coastal marshes, wetland, lakes or streams. 

k. Encourage waste water reuse and renovation. 

5. Plan for urban growth in concert with local water 
ava i 1 abi 1 i ty . 

6. Support water management district efforts in planning 
for long-range water resource allocation. 

7. Carefully plan and distribute growth around lakes, 
rivers, and prime recharge areas in order to insure 
that such development is compatible with hydrologic 
systems . 



Vegetation (Forestry and Agriculture) 

GOALS: 1. Encourage the maintenance of integrity of prime agri- 
culture lands and alleviate the threat of loss of 
these areas. 

2. Assist in the conservation of lands best suited to 
agricultural uses in the Region. 

3. Support the management of forest resources in a manner 
compatible with land capabilities. 

OBJECTIVE: 1. Promote an awareness of agricultural and forest manage- 
ment problems or opportunities. 

2. Prevent or minimize loss of agricultural lands to 
suburban development. 

3. Help minimize the potential adverse Impacts that 
intensively managed agriculture lands may have on 
adjacent ecosystems. 



72 



POLICIES: 1. Support forest management programs which promote mixed 

use and aestetics and favors clear-cutting on a small 
tract bas is only. 

2. Discourage clear-cutting along lakes and streams which 
could cause erosion problems and endorse selective 
harvesting in sensitive areas. 

3. Discourage site preparation and building practices 
that unnecessarily remove trees and natural ground 
cover. 

4. Encourage and plan for greater efficiency and conser- 
vation in agricultural practices. 



Soils 



GOAL : Give due consideration to soil potentials or limitations in 

the development and use of land. 

OBJECT! VE : Assist in the prevention of undue loss of valuable soils due 
to erosion caused by agricultural mismanagement, development 
abuses and other human activities. 

POL I C I ES : 1. When major land alterations become necessary, wherever 

possible, recommend that exposed soils be expeditiously 
stabilized and restored. 

2. Incorporate consideration of soil potentials and limita- 
tions in land use planning and review processes. 

3. Encourage preparation of modern soil surveys in all 
counties in the Region. 

Topography and CI imate 

GOALS : 1. Insure that the regional planning process considers the 

primary determinants of climate quality as viable 
elements of resource management and site development. 

2. In planning for future land use, insure the consideration 
of topography as it relates to distinct land use 
potentials, i.e., coastal zone, hurricane flood zone, 
flood plain or areas excessively steep or flat in nature. 

OBJECTI VES : 1. Encourage energy conservation through proper site 

p 1 ann i ng . 

2. Discourage development in hazardous areas and require 
specific modifications adapting development to unique 
cond i t ions . 



73 



POL ! C I ES : 1. Encourage on site energy conservation including site 

planning, optimum use of natural vegetation, efficient 
structural designs, solar heating and cooling, 

2. Encourage development to take advantage of slope and 
prevailing winds to minimize pollution, maximize the 
benefits of climate, and achieve economy in construction 



Wildlife Resources 



GOALS: 1. Provide for the highest and most practical degree of 

management for all game species. 

2. Provide for the conservation of all wildlife and preser- 
vation of those species recognized as rare and/or 
endangered . 

OBJECTIVES : 1. Plan for and promote the conservation of wildlife as an 

essential element of the ecological components in the 
natural system. 

2. Maintain and preserve the natural complexity and 

stability of the regions interacting natural systems. 

POL I C I ES : 1. Encourage the protection and conservation of important 

wildlife habitat of the region through state and federal 
programs . 

2. Plan for the retention of important wildlife "islands" 
or communities in and around urban centers. 

3. Enhance the recognition of wildlife values through 
environmental planning projects. 

k. Promote the concept of wildlife as an essential element 
of outdoor recreation activities. 



Areas of Environmental Value 

GOAL: Protect and preserve recognized areas of high natural 

environmental values, such as unique coastal marshes, 
springs, hammocks and geological features. 

OBJECTIVE: Participate with state and federal agencies in the identifi- 
cation of rare or unique or natural sites. 

POLICIES: 1. Endorse the preservation or conservation of important 

unique natural or environmental areas through programs 
such as the Florida Environmentally Endangered Lands 
Program. 



7^ 



2. Discourage development adjacent to sensitive natural 
areas such as coastal marshes unless development can 
be demonstrated to have insignificant adverse impact 
or there is overriding public interest. 

3. Support public use of wilderness areas only to the 
extent compatible with the purpose of the area. 

k. Support the acquisition or management -of selected 

natural areas by state, federal or local governments. 

5. Work toward refinements in environmental assessment 
and planning capabilities to improve project evalua- 
tions for those activities having long-term or cumula- 
tive impacts upon the physical environment. 



75 



APPEND I CES 



77 



APPEND I X A 

COMPILATION OF TECHNICAL DATA 

The information appearing in tables of the Natural Resources Study and 
Land Use Plan for north central Florida are similar in nature. Both 
reports define land uses in forms suitable to the specific needs and 
intent of each individual study. Although all information presented was 
compiled from authoritative sources, discrepancies may be observed between 
these documents and even individual tables. 

In preparing these documents the need for a diversity of information man- 
dated the use of a number of technical reference documents. Although 
efforts were made to achieve consistency, no major attempt was made to 
reconcile all sources of data. Therefore, minor inconsistencies between 
figures presented in both documents are apparent. These inconsistencies 
are attributed to both variations in land use definition as well as data 
sources. 

Definitions in land use categories can be misleading in terms of the data 
presented unless each text is thoroughly read. For example, forestry 
figures in the National Resources Study pertain to total forested lands, 
while similar figures given in the Land Use Plan pertain specifically to 
commercial forestry lands. This is also illustrated by forest figures 
given for each county. In the instance of Alachua County, the Natura 1 
Resources Study reports total forest lands as 311,^00 acres, and similarly 
the Land Use Plan records a total of 258,000 acres of commercial forest 
lands . 

A second problem, that associated with different data sources, must remain 
unresolved pending further land use analyses as anticipated in the prepa- 
ration of the Regional Comprehensive Plan. One example of this type of 
problem can readily be illustrated by citing total land area figures for 
Alachua County from three different sources. These include: 

Forest Statistics for Northeast Florida (1970) - 588,200 acres 

197^ Census of Agriculture - 5^6,048 acres 

Florida Statistical Abstract (1976) - 617,^5^ acres. 

Despite inconsistencies of this nature, the reader should note that the 
discrepancies between reports and individual tables represent an average 
error of less than five percent and typically less than one percent. 
Therefore, the broad regional land use analyses contained in both docu- 
ments are unaffected by this insignificant degree of difference. 



79 



APPENDIX B 

METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING FUTURE URBANl'ZED AREA 
ESTIMATES, IN SQUARE MILES OF AREA 

The equation employed was: 
^1 '2 



Where 



A, = Urban and Built-up Area, in square miles, current estimate. 

A^ = Urban and Built-up Area, year (N) (Unknown). 

2 
P = Population Estimate, 1975. 

P„ = Population Estimate, year (N) . 



Solve for A 



Refer to the respective county land use profile for figures and data 
sources . 

2 
Taken from the 1976 Population and Economic Study , published by this 

agency. 

3 
Also taken from the 1976 Population and Economic Study , in addition to 

unpublished data generated during that project. 



81 



B I BLI OGRAPHY 

1. Alachua County Department of Planning and Development, North Central 

Florida Regional Planning Council, Alachua County Comprehensive 
Plan, 1975-1995 , Volumes I S II, August, 1976. 

2. Barr, Dunlop S Associates, Inc., Comprehensive Planning Program , 

Columbia County, Florida , June, 1976. 

3. Barr, Dunlop & Associates, Inc., Gilchrist County Comprehensive 

Planning Program , June, 1976. 

k. Barr, Dunlop & Associates, Inc., Hamilton County Comprehensive 
Planning Program , Volume I, June, 1976. 

5. Barr, Dunlop & Associates, Inc., Suwannee County, Florida, Compre- 

hensive Development Plan , May, 197^. 

6. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Florida, 

Florida Statistical Abstract , The University Presses of 
Florida, 1976. 

7. The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, 

Population and the American Future , March, 1972. 

8. Division of Water Resources, Florida Board of Conservation, Florida 

Lakes, Part III, Gazetter , I969. 

9. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Census of Local Governments , 

March, 1977- 



10. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Auci 1 1 a-Qchlockonee- 

St. Marks Basin Water Quality Management Plan , August, 1975- 

11. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Suwannee River Basin 

Water Quality Management Plan , August, 1975- 

12. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida Regional Coastal 

Zone Land Use Analysis, Region 3, North Central Florida , 
June, 1976. 



Florida Division of State Planning, Bureau of Comprehensive Planning, 

The Florida General Soils Atlas, With Interpretations for Regionaj_ 
Planning Districts ill & IV, July, 197^. 



I 



83 



I 



]k. Robert G. Healy, Land Use and the States , The Johns Hopkins 
University Press, 1976, 

15- Melvin R. Levin, Jerome G. Rose, Joseoh S. Slavet, New Approaches to 
State Land Use Policies , Lexington 3ooks , C. C. Heatn and 
Company, 197^. 

16. North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Hous i ng , 1977- 

17. North Central Florida Regional Planninq Council, Natural Resources 
Study , 1977. 

18. North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Population and 

Economic Study , 1976. 

19. North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Significant Natural 

Areas in Planning District 111 , 1977- 

20. North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Union County 

Comprehensive Plan, 1976-2QQQ, Part I . June, 1976. 

21. William K. Reilly, Editor, A Task Force Report Sponsored by the 

Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Use of Land: A Citizens' Policy 
Guide to Urban Growth , 1973- 

22- Urban and Regional Development Center, University of Florida, 

Technical Assistance to Bradford County in Developing a Land 
Use Plan: A Basic Research Document , June, 197^. 

23. United States- Department of Agriculture, et al, Northeast Gulf River 
Basins, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Cooperative Study , June, 1977. 

2k. Wayne H. Colony Company, Inc., Taylor County-City of Perry Compre- 
hens i ve Planning Study. June, 197^. 



8^ 



NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL 



STAFF 

Charles F, Justice, Executive Director 

Charles Harwood, Director of Regional Planning 

Roy Brewer, Planner Mi 

Alan Csontos, Environmental Planner 

Jeanne Martel , Planner I 

David Till is, Planner I 



a.. 2- 
'p&&% pi 



Primary Responsibility